[Tfug] Browser based UI's

[johngalt1]

This was a stupid idea way back when Microsoft tried to 
"integrate" the browser into their OSes. They were in a 
painc after realizing they messed up by discounting the 
Internet.

During that time period, practically every other "industry 
funded" BS white paper and study predicted a browser 
takeover of the desktop OS.

This was in the Microsoft 95/98 days..

Well, we see how far that vision carried forth...

Only now - ten years later, do we have sluggish Flash / 
silverlite apps that freeze up when loading on a moderately 
fast internet connection....




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bexley Hall" <bexley401 at yahoo.com>
To: <tfug at tfug.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: [Tfug] Browser based UI's


>
> Hi,
>
> I've been trying to give browser based user interfaces
> "the benefit of the doubt" as potential general purpose
> user interfaces.  But, I think I have come to the
> realization that they just don't (can't?) work for
> *all* types of applications.  I.e., Google's idea
> that they can replace the desktop with web based
> applications is  just a wet dream, IMO.
>
> But, I have been unable to codify *why* these "just don't
> work" -- whether it is the browser's "fault" (i.e., 
> capabilties
> that are missing in that type of interface) *or* that of
> the applications, themselves (i.e., could these work if 
> the
> model adopted by the application were different than it
> *has* been?)
>
> Of course, the responsiveness of the network plays a role.
> But, pretend you were connecting to "localhost" for all of
> your "web based services"... so transport delays, dropped
> packets, etc. were not an issue.  I'm sure you could still
> see how many "applications" just *suck* using this form of
> interface.
>
> [i.e., imagine rewriting KDE so you opened a giant browser
> window in your startup script that was pointed at 
> http://localhost/kde
> to provide that "environment".  Some of it would work 
> "OK".
> Some parts would be "passable, but not ideal".  And other
> things would just suck horribly!]
>
> Any thoughts as to what aspects of the 
> applications/browser
> make for *good* interfaces vs. bad?  I.e., obviously a 
> 100%
> static application can be handled reasonably well in a 
> browser...
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>